DNC lawsuit: “you’re morons to believe us” — PART 1 of 3

In the matter of the DNC fraud lawsuit, the absolute worst outcome for the Democratic Party would be to win their argument for dismissal. And yet, if it isn’t dismissed Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC will still be in a world of hurt.

PHOTO BY: Brook Hines

Arguments for dismissal of the DNC fraud lawsuit were delivered Tuesday, April 25 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, before the Hon. William J. Zloch. After reading the complaint and the transcript for dismissal, it’s clear to me that the DNC has been caught in a catch-22.  From a legal standpoint, the only hope the DNC has is to win dismissal. If they lose the argument for dismissal, the whole matter will go to trial. This means Democratic Party elites will be called to take the stand (and respond to discovery) under penalty of perjury. Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz will most certainly be called to testify—thus creating an existential crisis for the DNC.

Even if the DNC wins the legal matter and the judge grants dismissal, they will have “won” by breaking Democracy. This is because the DNC has employed a scorched-earth approach in presenting their arguments for dismissal which goes: Regardless of the Party’s public face, they retain the right to choose candidates in secret, thereby screwing their constituents out of any meaningful representation in the democratic process. And that, they argue, is just the way politics rolls—you’re a moron if you don’t it see it. 

Imagine they win this argument. Who in their right mind is going to run in a Democratic Presidential Primary with this cat out of the bag? We know that the DNC picks one winner before the whole charade begins. Imagine you’re the lucky corporate candidate who gets their nod behind closed doors; who’s to say that you’re the only person who gets that nod? Without a brand that is believably “fair and impartial,” the DNC not only loses their standing with voters—they lose it with candidates.

Once this is existential crisis is established, there is nothing to support an argument for the DNC’s continued existence. Candidates could—and should—run outside of the party machine. This is essentially what Obama did in 2008.

Presenting for the defendant, DNC Services Corp d/b/a Democratic National Committee, was attorney Bruce Spiva who argued that party rules are “discretionary.” So, even if the head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, spends months on national TV selling the message that the party acts in a “fair and impartial” manner with regard to candidates vying for the nomination, no one in their right mind would believe that is the case—you’re morons if you do—because this is politics after all.

Here’s the precise language he used: “Here, you have something far more inchoate, your Honor, which is this purported — this claim that the party acted without evenhandedness and impartiality. That — even to define what constitutes evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the Court well into a political question and a question of how the party runs its own affairs.”

PG 28, transcript motion hearing (to dismiss).

You have to marvel at the nerve of an attorney telling a Federal Judge, that there’s no way to define “impartial,” as if that’s not the very definition of his job.

What this means, of course, is that all the hundreds of thousands of fundraising emails sent over the course of the Presidential Primary, soliciting donations based on a belief of a “fair and impartial” process, are just so much puffery. They’re exaggerations that only children would believe in—like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Maybe the court will rule that fundraising solicitations come with a disclaimer: “We reserve the right to nominate whoever the hell we please regardless of your silly little donations, phone banking or door knocking.”

DNC attorney Spiva also argued that to seek remedy for donations solicited under false pretenses would violate the First Amendment rights of the party for free association. Said Spiva, “I mean, the Court would have to find that people who reverently supported Bernie Sanders and who purportedly didn’t know that favoritism was going on would have not given to Mr. Sanders, if they had known that there was this purported favoritism.”

PHOTO BY: Brook Hines

As Jordan Chariton of The Young Turks reported, Spiva told the Court that, “We could have…voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right.”

As the DNC argues, everyone who donated money to Sanders or to the DNC thinking there would be a fair and impartial process, were all just stupid children who don’t understand that we’re lucky the party doesn’t cheat us the way it used to, in smoke-filled back rooms. They just do it under our noses, and if we were not cynical enough to open our eyes and see that, then again, we’re a bunch of morons.

Presenting for the plaintiffs in this motion to dismiss was Jared H. Beck of the law firm Beck & Lee.

Responding to the DNC’s theory that ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ is too slippery of a concept for anyone to judge, Beck says, “Your Honor, I’m shocked to hear that we can’t define what it means to be evenhanded and impartial. If that were the case, we couldn’t have courts. I mean, that’s what courts do every day, is decide disputes in an evenhanded and impartial manner.”

Beck continues by reminding the court that impartiality and evenhandedness is represented in the DNC’s charter, it was represented ad nauseum in the media, and, “frankly, [it’s] the bedrock of what it means to live in a democratic society.”

Beck then states the existential crisis quite clearly: “because if you don’t have the organization that is responsible for organizing in this very large sense the nominating process for the president, which entails multiple elections in every state of the union, if you’re not evenhanded and impartial, then you don’t have a democratic process. I think it’s that simple.”

If you aren’t evenhanded and impartial, then you don’t have a democratic process, full stop. 

At the end of the hearing the Judge Zloch said, “This is a very interesting case, to say the least. And counsel for the plaintiffs spoke about whether or not society…is in a dire situation. And so I’ll leave the lawyers with this. Democracy demands the truth so people can make intelligent decisions.”

For this and many more reasons I’ll be addressing in Parts 2 and 3 of this series, it’s my opinion that this case will not be fully dismissed, and that will be a very bad day for the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

PHOTO BY: Brook Hines

CLICK HERE to download PDF transcript of motion hearing. 

18 comments

  1. I was in court observing and here is my take. The lawyers for the defense are trying to squash the case with legal technicalities. They are saying it can’t be a class action lawsuit because the donors can’t show that they were harmed. They also compared the lies of DWS of neutrality to that of Trump’s lies and Bush Sr. saying read my lips, no new taxes. Mr. Beck argued the DNC’s by-laws state they must remain neutral. The defense stated that the DNC is not accountable to members of the party and DWS’s first amendment right of free speech is being attacked. Mr. Beck argued that free speech has it’s limits. If the leader of a business or organization lies to it’s share holders or members, it is fraud and they suffer financial damage. The Judge said he will review the merits of the case and make a decision in the near future if the case should go forward. There was no media coverage.

    1. I’ll be addressing these particulars of each side’s theory in Part 2. The DNC had to go with the arguments available to them, weak or not. The defense had to present a case for dismissal, and hope that some of their arguments stick. The matter of there being no media coverage just goes to show how somnambulant our the political press is.

  2. Joseph Kreps · · Reply

    Great job Brook.

    On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 12:10 PM, The Florida Squeeze wrote:

    > Brook Hines posted: “In the matter of the DNC fraud lawsuit, the absolute > worst outcome for the Democratic Party would be to win their argument for > dismissal. And yet, if it isn’t dismissed Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the > DNC will still be in a world of hurt. Argument” >

  3. Mick Miller · · Reply

    The DNC is in a deadly box of its own construction here.

    1. If DWS’ repeated claims she would be fair and neutral, and the DNC’s own rules saying it is impartial to primary candidates are meaningless political blather no one should ever believe (as its attorneys just argued), then no one should support the DNC in the Presidential primary process, or give any money ever again.

    And that’s probably what should happen regardless, as they’ve just told us they’ll pick candidates in secret any time they damn please, and don’t feel bound in the slightest by anything they promise or any “rules” they claim to abide by.

    2. If the DNC was legally obligated to treat primary candidates with fairness and impartiality, given that it solicited lots of money and public participation on that basis, then it’s liable in a big way. The proof the DNC acted solely as an arm of the Clinton campaign and treated Sanders as a political enemy is abundant and already known, and will only get more egregious if the lawsuit proceeds to discovery.

    This is the problem with your basic wealthy Masters of the Universe types. They don’t want any icky democracy getting in the way of their power trading, but they also depend on everyone’s money and support to fuel the process.

    Can’t have both. And the DNC just may find itself with neither.

  4. JOSEPH KREPS · · Reply

    By the way this is the old corrupt and purged DNC. Bernie and Keith Ellison are all over the new DNC like white on rice and the old FDP. Tant, Arceneaux, DWS etc. have put up Gilliam as their puppet to try to keep control of Florida. The new FDP of Bittel and Sally Boynton Brown have sworn to be neutral. Jared Beck and Elizabeth Lee will be watching. And so will I.

    1. thank you for these — i encourage everyone to read the original documents for themselves.

  5. R Alexander · · Reply

    Until DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ is indicted and convicted for election fraud, no thinking person is going to take the DNC or Democratic party seriously.

  6. This article went to the heart of what I have been posting everywhere: The voter rolls costs in campaigns, the “services” charges of the DCCC and DNC (and DO NOT TRY AN ARGUMENT THE DCCC IS, AND WAS NOT COMPLICIT in THIS FRAUD), the very basics of presenting “progressive candidates” who are “neutral” in the lawsuit, is IMPOSSIBLE at this point. If you are running on the Dem ballots for 2018, you are a part of the scam of partial, rigged elections. And, we haven’t even begun to see what kinds of deals are being made on initiatives! The Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress presenting Cori Bush on the Dem ballot in Missouri for Congress, is ridiculous. No one but a total moron can possibly support a Dem candidate for anything at this point. Every revolution has a few purges, and a few bumps in the road, getting to a democracy from an oligarchy. This lawsuit is a very large bump in addressing the corruption, it’s more of a mountain for the corrupt DNC. FANTASTIC job covering this story. Thank you so much! “Democracy demands the truth so that people can make intelligent decisions.” Judge William J. Zloch, April 24, 2017, DNC Fraud Lawsuit Motion to Dismiss by the DNC Hearing.

  7. Reblogged this on nonnie7696's Blog and commented:
    #dncFraudLawsuit

  8. KKK was brought down rightly so my lawsuits that broke the backs of their finances.
    DNC corruption lawsuits can bring them down. Hundreds of millions of dollars Payback for fraudulently misrepresenting donors.

  9. Henry Turner · · Reply

    Many thanks for your exemplary journalistic efforts. I guess you ARE the “mainstream media” by – even if the stream is only a trickle…. I will be watching your career with interest and love for as long as I am able. (I’m 75….) Write a book sometime.

  10. […] via DNC lawsuit: “you’re morons to believe us” — PART 1 of 3 — The Florida Squeeze […]

  11. gwen nelson · · Reply

    “”At the end of the hearing the Judge Zloch said, “This is a very interesting case, to say the least. And counsel for the plaintiffs spoke about whether or not society…is in a dire situation. And so I’ll leave the lawyers with this. Democracy demands the truth so people can make intelligent decisions.””

    It cheers me no end that the Judge made this observation.

  12. Maybe the lawyers for Bernie and his supporters shoul dbring in the people from the other 4 Dem hopefuls. I mean Webb flat out mentioned this favoritism back during the debates. ( I think it was webb) Chaffee, Omalley, and Lessig, may have something to add to this. Would they have even bothered if they knew HRC was already chosen? Or were they there to give the illusion of choice?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: